Southwark Council (202528274)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202528274 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Southwark Council |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
12 March 2026 |
Background
1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance from the flat above. This flat was privately owned and managed by a letting agent. Throughout the complaint, the resident’s daughter also reported issues to the landlord. For clarity, we refer to all reports as coming from the resident.
What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
- Handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
- Complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
5. The landlord did not manage the reports of noise nuisance in line with its policy. It did not complete a risk assessment within its policy timescales, and it did not keep the resident updated throughout the case. It did not acknowledge these failings in its complaint responses.
6. The landlord did not meet the timescales in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) for its complaint responses and did not acknowledge these delays. It also did not address all the concerns the resident raised.
Putting things right
Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.
Orders
Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 09 April 2026 |
|
2 |
The landlord must pay the resident £350 compensation made up as follows:
handling. The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made from this total figure. It must pay this amount directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 09 April 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The resident has confirmed that the issue is still ongoing. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident directly and discuss her concerns. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
7 May 2025 |
The resident raised a complaint. She said there was noise nuisance from the flat above that had been ongoing for over 2 years. She said the noise monitoring did not capture the problem because the noise stopped during installation and returned once the landlord removed the equipment. She also said that the flat above had frequent renovations and poor flooring insulation. The resident described the landlord’s communication as “poor” and said its delays and lack of support had affected her mental health. |
|
8 August 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had acted in line with its noise policy. The tenant from the flat above had made a counter allegation that the resident had sprayed something through their letterbox. It recommended that the resident keep reporting incidents so it could witness and confirm any statutory noise nuisance. |
|
12 August 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said she had reported noise for several years, but the landlord had not acted. She had reported noise after 2am, but it would not attend. She also said the claim that she sprayed something through the neighbour’s letterbox was untrue and should not form part of her case. |
|
29 August 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it did not uphold the complaint because there was no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance. It followed its policy, inspected the neighbour’s flat, and asked the neighbour to use extra rugs to reduce noise. Its noise team had not witnessed any statutory nuisance, and it recommended that the resident keep reporting incidents. It also advised the resident that she could take private legal action under the Environmental Protection Act. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the issue was still ongoing. She asked for the landlord to do a full investigation into the noise nuisance and insulate the floor above to reduce the noise. |
What we found and why
The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
Reports of noise nuisance |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we have not investigated
7. The resident has told us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s noise nuisance investigations since 2023. To ensure fairness, we focused this investigation on the issues she raised in her formal complaint and reviewed events from August 2024 to September 2025. This approach gives the landlord a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to her concerns. If the resident has any ongoing issues, she may wish to raise them with the landlord as a new formal complaint.
What we have investigated
8. In cases relating to antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance, it is not our role to determine whether ASB or noise nuisance occurred or who is responsible. We can assess how a landlord dealt with reports it received within the timeframe of a complaint. We consider whether it followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
9. The landlord uses its ASB procedure to investigate noise nuisance complaints. It considers noise-related issues from neighbours as medium risk cases. For such cases, it will contact the resident and complete a risk assessment within 3 working days.
10. On 4 August 2024 the resident reported banging and loud music from the upstairs flat. The landlord acknowledged this the next day and said it would investigate. However, it did not complete a risk assessment until 29 January 2025, over 5 months later. This was not in line with its ASB policy, which requires a risk assessment within 3 days. The purpose of this timescale is to assess the case properly, identify any risks, and manage the situation safely.
11. On 27 August 2024 the landlord spoke to the alleged perpetrator, warned them about noise, and contacted the letting agent. It found that the owner had installed floor tiles without its permission and advised the agent to put down rugs. It updated the resident the same day and asked her to report further incidents and keep a diary while it monitored the case. These were appropriate actions in line with its ASB policy, which says it should use early intervention to resolve the issue and encourage the resident to use diary sheets.
12. The resident provided diary sheets on 10 September 2024. The landlord contacted the letting agent the same day. The agent confirmed that new tenants had moved in and said it had warned them about noise. After the resident reported further banging on 23 September 2024, the landlord raised the issue with the agent again. The letting agent agreed to install rugs to reduce impact noise.
13. The resident reported further noise on 30 September 2024. The landlord visited the same day and found that the noise might be coming from a different property. It continued enquiries through October and November 2024, including checking whether the pipes in the building were causing the noise. These actions were in line with its ASB policy. It responded within 3 working days, investigated the source, and used proportionate, early‑stage remedies before considering escalation.
14. On 27 January 2025, the resident reported further noise from the flat above. The landlord responded the next day. It said it would visit the alleged perpetrator, contact the letting agent, issue a noise diary, request a noise‑checking device, and complete a risk assessment. It completed the risk assessment on 29 January 2025 and said it would conduct a joint visit with the letting agent in March 2025. These actions were in line with its ASB policy. It responded promptly, engaged with both the resident and the letting agent, and used evidence‑gathering tools.
15. However, by May 2025 the evidence shows that the issue was still ongoing, and the landlord had not completed the planned joint visit with the letting agent. The resident asked for an update on 2 May 2025. It responded the same day and told her that a new officer had taken over the case on 7 April 2025 and that the noise‑monitoring equipment had not detected statutory noise. The resident emailed 3 more times about further noise and for an update, but it did not reply until 28 May 2025. This delay was not in line with its ASB policy, which requires it to respond within 3 working days and to keep the resident updated.
16. In its response on 28 May 2025, the landlord said it would arrange a joint visit with the letting agent and the alleged perpetrator within 7 days and it would update the resident. However, there is no evidence that this visit took place. Between June and August 2025, it did not provide any updates, which was not in line with its ASB policy to keep the resident updated.
17. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 August 2025. It was reasonable for it to advise the resident to keep reporting incidents to the noise team, as it can only take enforcement action once an officer had witnessed statutory nuisance. However, it did not explain its lack of action since May 2025, why the joint visit with the letting agent and alleged perpetrator had not gone ahead, or why it had not provided any updates.
18. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 September 2025. It was reasonable for it to keep the case open and to tell the resident that she could consider private legal action under the Environmental Protection Act. It also said it met with the letting agent and the alleged perpetrator on 14 August 2025. It confirmed that the alleged perpetrator had put down a rug and that it had told them to use more rugs.
19. However, it did not update the resident about this visit before the stage 2 response. This was not in line with its ASB policy, which says it must keep residents updated throughout a case. The delay likely made the resident feel it was not taking her concerns seriously, especially because she had been waiting for an update on this visit since May 2025.
20. Overall, the landlord did not manage the reports of noise nuisance in line with its ASB policy. It took over 5 months to complete a risk assessment, and it did not keep the resident updated throughout the case. It did not acknowledge these failings in its complaint responses. This likely caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience, and she had told the landlord the issue was affecting her mental health. For these reasons, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance.
21. We order the landlord to pay £200 compensation for the failures found in this case. This is in line with our remedies guidance when there was a failing by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
22. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
23. The resident raised a complaint on 7 May 2025, but the landlord did not treat this as a formal complaint. This was not in line with the Code, which says a complaint is any expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and landlords must accept it into the complaints process. As a result, the resident had to complain again on 29 July 2025, causing her avoidable time and trouble.
24. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 August 2025, 66 working days after the resident first raised her complaint and significantly outside of the timeframes set in the Code. It did not acknowledge this delay or the resident’s earlier complaint in its responses, which was a failing.
25. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 August 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 September 2025, 14 working days outside of the timeframe in the Code. The landlord again did not acknowledge this delay in its complaint responses.
26. In her escalation request, the resident disputed the allegation that she had sprayed something through the letterbox of her neighbour. She also said she had been reporting the noise from the property above since 2023. The landlord did not address these issues in its stage 2 response. This was not in line with the Code, which requires landlords to respond to every issue raised and to give clear reasons for their decisions. By failing to address these matters, it showed that it had not fully understood the resident’s complaint or the outcome she sought. It also missed an opportunity to fully investigate and put things right.
27. Overall, the landlord did not meet the Code’s timescales for its complaint responses and did not acknowledge the delays. It also did not address all the concerns the resident raised. This caused her inconvenience and unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. For these reasons, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
28. In light of this, we order that the landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance when there was a failing by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
29. The landlord maintained good records of the actions it had taken to resolve the ASB.
Communication
30. The investigation found gaps in the landlord’s communication, particularly in keeping the resident updated during its investigation. The landlord did not consistently provide timeframes, explain delays, or follow up after key appointments. This created uncertainty and increased the resident’s need to chase for information.
Complaint handling
31. The landlord did not log the resident’s initial complaint, missed response deadlines, and did not address all issues raised. It could consider staff training to ensure it understands all complaint issues and it fully responds within the Code timeframes.